44. Have Christianity and Islam exchanged views of each other?

One thing to keep in mind here is that the Shaykh mentions “Christianity” and “Islam” having ‘views’ of each other, rather than Christians and Muslims. I can’t wrap my head around what that means exactly, if anything.

So one way to approach this contention is to think of it in terms of views of each group towards each other. To understand this contention I think it’s best to write down how both groups viewed each other early on and then consider how they view each other today.

This article by Soumayya Ghannoushi, “Western view of Islam: A troubled history” is useful in this respect:

She writes:

To medieval Christianity, Islam was the point of intersection of all these categories, the Other par excellence: a corrupted Judaism, perverted Christianity, and wild natural paganism all at once, both the enemy within and without
…
To the reformists, Islam was synonymous with the whole deviation and moral corruption of the papacy: pride, greed, violence and lust for power and possession. But in order to demonize the new ideas of its enemies, who were rapidly growing in popularity, the Roman Catholic Church could not find a worse charge than Muhammadism.

Now that the Muslims are in a much less imposing position, it seems that the Shaykh’s contention rings true. The attributes of pride, greed, violence, and lust for power and possesion have all been recalled within Muslim hearts when thinking of Christiandom. This is especially in light of the war in Iraq and other actions taken to protect oil interests.

We now need to determine what was the view of Muslims towards Christianity. Without having any direct sources in this subject, I would throw out some suppositions. I believe the early Muslim view towards medieval Christianity would have been one of “lacking enlightenment”, “misguided due to error”, “backwards”.

This is certainly a view which has exchanged positions as well.

Feel free to share other ideas in this regard.

Continuation of my Contentions Series.

Link to Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1.

43. Our God is too generous to require an ‘economy of salvation’

From The History of Christian Thought by Paul Tillich

“There is an economy of salvation, the building of the different periods which finally led to the new man. This idea of the new man, or new creature, or new being, as the aim of the history of salvation, is an important contribution of these theologians.

This economy, this periodic preparation, is already present in the Old Testament. So Ignatius says: “Judaism has believed towards Christianity.” Here again we have the relationship towards fulfillment. The Christ, the new man, has appeared. He is perfect. The disruptedness of the old man is overcome and death is dissolved. This leads to Christology.”

Interpretation:
The main idea that is being put forth here is that while Islam believes Allah sent Messengers of importance and weight to guide all of mankind, the ‘economy of salvation’ of the Christians holds that none of that was relevant to salvation until Jesus (AS) came.

Someone holding to the belief of the ‘economy of salvation’ believes the difference between people born before Christ and those after Christ is, in a way, the similar to people born poor and those born wealthy in today’s economy.

Shaykh Abdal Hakim puts, as evidence against this concept, God’s generosity, in which there are no poor and no wealthy. Guidance is provided to all levels of humanity (part of it being innate), and is not temporally bound by the appearance of a certain Prophet. For individuals who were never provided explicit guidance, forgiveness still reaches them.

Continuation of my Contentions Series.

Link to Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1.

42. Juda-yi Ism: the absolutizing of a people.
Edom: the absolutizing of a person.
Islam: the absolutizing of God.

First it is important to realize what the Shaykh mean by “absolutizing”. Something “absolute” is defined in certain terms, it is not changing in its nature. To apply it to verb such as ‘absolutizing’, we can take ‘absolutizing’ to mean to ‘make absolute, to define certainly’.

Next we have to look at the terms used:

Juda-yi Ism: the absolutizing of a people
Juda-yi Ism - This is a play on the word of Judaism. But what is the Shaykh hinting at here by changing its spelling/organization? What the Shaykh has done here is emphasize the fact that Judaism is a religion of a people, as Juda references an ancient kingdom in which Jerusalem was its center. In this way the Shaykh is drawing a connection between Judaism as a religion of a people of the kingdom of Juda.

This part of the contention is telling us that Judaism has an emphasis on a people and an identity, and is centered around that fact.

Edom: the absolutizing of a person.
Edom - What the Shaykh swiftly does here is bring Jesus (AS) to the realm of manhood, in a two ways.

1) In the Old Testament Edom was another name for Esau (Similar sounding to Isa(AS)), the brother of Jacob.

2) According to some forms of Christianity and modern scholars, another Jacob was the brother of Jesus (AS)

So [Torah] Edom -> [Torah] Esau -> brother of [Torah] Jacob
and [New Testament] Jacob brother of -> Isa(AS) -> pronounce as Esau -> Edom

All this fancy connection does is firmly establish that Isa (AS) was certainly a man who even had a brother.

This second part is saying that Christianity’s focus is that of a man.

Islam: the absolutizing of God

I think this one speaks for itself!

Continuation of my Contentions Series.

Link to Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1.

41. The liberal theory of religion is homeopathic. (The more you water it down, the stronger it will become.)

Interpretation:

I first viewed this contention differently than I do now. First it made me think that the Shaykh was saying something to the extent of “reacting to liberalism is making Islam stronger”, but I have since changed my mind and below is my reasoning why.

First we must understand what is meant by “the liberal theory of religion”.

In terms of religion liberalism is defined as: the movement away from traditional orthodoxy often in an attempt to harmonize biblical teachings with science, humanism, or other secular fields. Liberal forms of religion are often viewed as “watered down”, similar to what the Shaykh is saying up above.

Next, I somewhat understood homeopathy as a “natural” healing form of medicine, but to my surprise I found that is not the case:

“Contemporary Western homeopathic medicine, based on the work of the German physician and chemist Samuel Hahnemann some 200 years ago, aims to stimulate the individual’s innate healing processes through the administration of minute “homeopathic” dilutions of specific remedies. Derived from the Greek homeo, meaning same, and pathos, meaning suffering, homeopathy essentially treats “like with like”. The patient describes his or her symptoms in detail, with equal emphasis placed on both physical and psychological symptoms. The practitioner then prescribes very small, nontoxic doses of a selected substance that, at higher doses, would produce the same symptoms in a healthy person. - www.camreports.hs.columbia.edu/diseases.html“

So here we find that homeopathic medicine is based off the idea of using small amounts of a substance to make it a strong cure for the illness (second part of contention).

The next thing to establish is how homeopathy is generally viewed. Well, most people I know would not consider the above to be true medicine at all.

We can now put together the pieces of this contention. With the “watered down” aspect of the contention, the Shaykh is asserting that liberalism is a watered down version of Islam.

In summary, the Shaykh is indicating that the liberals in religion are following the homeopathic principle which is to believe that the more you water it down, the stronger it is as a cure.

As a final conclusion, one could consider that homeopathy, although it may have had a fevered adherence for some time, was not a very successful form of medicine in the long run. So the relationship may be drawn here to the failure of homeopathy and eventual failure of liberalism in religion.

Continuation of my Contentions Series.

Link to Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1.

40. The Paraclete was indeed the Comforter. We were in a state of ascetical panic about ourselves.

Terms: Paraclete

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Paraclete, Comforter (L. Consolator; Gr. parakletos), an appellation of the Holy Ghost. The Greek word which, as a designation of the Holy Ghost at least, occurs only in St. John (xiv, 16, 26; xv, 26; xvi, 7), has been variously translated “advocate”, “intercessor”, “teacher, “helper”, “comforter”. This last rendering, though at variance with the passive form of the Greek, is justified by the Hellenistic usage, a number of ancient versions, patristic and liturgical authority, and the evident needs of the Johannine context. According to St. John the mission of the Paraclete is to abide with the disciples after Jesus has withdrawn His visible presence from them; to inwardly bring home to them the teaching externally given by Christ and thus to stand as a witness to the doctrine and work of the Saviour.

This contention is again in the theme of Chistianity, as Paraclete was the term found in the New Testament which Muslims such as Shaikh Ahmad Deedat held referred to Muhummad (S). I remember that Shaikh Ahmad Deedat often referred to this reference of “Paraclete” in his pamphlet/books as well as speeches.

Although I have learned since that discussing the polemic debate over what such things actually reference is somewhat futile with Christians, but it is definately good to be aware of as a Muslim. I find that sincerity and iklhas, not such debate, is usually the best Dawah, as the other post from Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad shows.

The second sentence of the contention indicates that the Parcalete, in our case Muhummad (S), was a comforter of a phase of an “ascetical panic“.

I find that asceticism and “panic” are two contrary words, since one often views asceticism in terms of patience, self-denial and self discipline. So one word naturally denies the other, most ascetics wouldn’t be “panic-prone”, in my opinion.

So if we take it a level above, then it may be that it is the result of their panic over the nature of God’s instructions for us that led the religious people of the time to an extreme lifestyle of asceticism, celebacy, etc.

So in this way, Muhummad(S), can be viewed as a comforter for us that he indeed brought a sense of calmness to our nature, allowing Muslims to live worldy lives with religious meaning.

39. Christianity was providential as preparatio evangelica.

preparatio evangelica - As far as I could discover its origins are from a book of early Christian historian, Eusebius. Translating to “The Evanglical Preperation”

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jackson2/04_eus.html

“The object of this work, which is in fifteen books, is to predispose the thoughtful to receive the Christian religion by dissipating their pagan prejudices. The first six books are employed in demolishing the pagan systems of religion, which the author shatters by his learned elucidations. The pure and reasonable character of the Christian theology and the blessings which the faith has brought to the world are set forth in contrast with the absurd teachings of polytheism….
-snip-
From all this the author concludes that Christians are right in abandoning a false theology in favor of that of the Jews.”

This is a great introduction to the early Christian writings which may have envisioned a Christianity much more similar to Islam and Judaism in theology.

As far as the Shaykh’s contention, I believe it is simply indicating that the discussion of Christianity within this text is representing (at some level) the divinely sent religion of Isa (AS).

Continuation of my Contentions Series.

Link to Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1.

38. Annunciation vs. enunciation: the word is best made word.

Terms:

Annunciation- a festival commemorating the announcement of the Incarnation by the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary; a quarter day in England, Wales, and Ireland

Enunciation- the articulation of speech regarded from the point of view of its intelligibility to the audience

Interpretation:

The first part pits two like-sounding words against each other.

“the word is best made word”

This part seems open for the most interpretation. If we relate the first reference of “word” to “Annunciation”, and the second reference of “word” to “Enunciation”, then we begin to see something form here. I feel its legitimate to replace them as I do, since both refer to forms of speech or announcements/pronouncements.

“The Annunciation is best made Enunciation”

A verse to keep in mind here is, Sura 3:59 Translated as:
“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be!” And he was.”

We might understand this contention better if we associate “enunciation” as the reference to this concept of “Be!”. Obviously wary of the fact that enunciation could be miscontrued as a bit anthropomorphic so I wonder if this is really where the Shaykh was going with this.

So.. finally, I would understand this as:

“The announcement of Isa’s (AS) birth (Annunciation) should best be understood through the acknowledgement of Allah’s ability to say “Be!” (enunciation), and it is. “

Perfect time to remind everyone that I’m no expert and I have never even met Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad, so any interpretations you have, feel free to post about them.